Here are all the applications!
10 Likes
Thanks for this @Andre-Popovitch - very exciting! Just a reminder to all Subnet Management candidates, there are many subnet-specific topics on this forum (more still to be created if youāre up for it). So far the only applicants to engage with these are me and CodeGov. These topics provide an opportunity to get involved and demonstrate your Subnet Management skills and commitment, as well as showcase your abilities to people who will be voting on these proposals. Good luck to everyone! 
6 Likes
Just seeing this now. Weāre going to incentivize certain neurons to vote? Thatās going to be a big no vote from me on all such proposals.
To clarify my position, the existing reward structure is the incentive to verify what youāre voting on.
This is a horrible idea all around. I understand itās being implemented. I hate it. Thatās all.
Thanks for sharing your opinion @smaug. Your concerns are perhaps something that are worthy of their own topic (please try and be diplomatic about it). Here are some points that Iād like to raise your attention to:
- You seem satisfied with the existing reward structure. Youāre aware that individuals are rewarded based on their stake, and not directly in terms of the time and level of due diligence they put into their vote? You may be interested in these related discussions:
- Hereās a Subnet Management proposal review that I just posted ā Subnet Management - 4zbus (Application) - Developers - Internet Computer Developer Forum (dfinity.org). Do you expect the existing voting rewards mechanism to incentivise voters to put this much work into verifying technical proposals, even though theyād get the same voting rewards from an instant accept or reject (blind voting). Note that diffusion of responsibility may seem well and good to many voters, until itās pushed too far and something snaps.
- You may have overlooked the fact that these grants are only temporary, and will be replaced in roughly 6 months with a new voting rewards system that seeks to overcome some of the issues with the current system (the grants are to help more reviewers gain a following and hit the ground running when the new rewards mechanism launches)
Letās not overtake this topic with a back and forth. If youād like to discuss further, maybe start a dedicated topic and link to it from here. 
6 Likes
Is there a limit to how many grants a single team can receive? At the current rate of progression, it looks like @wpb & Co. are due to receive 5 of the 8 grants available (4 for CodeGov and 1 for @Lorimer who is a member of the CodeGov team if Iām not mistaken).
It seems this would undermine the original goal of this grant program:
1 Like
Hey @Jesse I appreciate your concern on this issue. Personally, I believe there are too few grants being offered for this work as I expressed several times in this thread. Iād like to see at least 4 grants awarded for each topic, if not more.
However, no matter what number of grants are going to be awarded, I believe that the CodeGov team has been diligently working on proving our credibility in each of the proposal topics. We post our reviews in the respective channel in the CodeGov community on OpenChat. For anyone paying attention to the forum on posts about these proposals, you will see that our team is constantly asking questions or providing feedback regarding our observations on these technical proposals. Hence, we have applied for grants for all 4 proposal topics because we have teams that can perform this work and we have demonstrated capability. CodeGov has only applied for one grant on each of the 4 proposal topics, which are all unique.
@Lorimer has decided to apply for Subnet Management on his own. He is on our team for IC-OS Version Election, but is is not on the CodeGov team that is planning to review the Subnet Management topic. I fully support his interest in applying for this topic as an individual and he has done more than anyone, by far, to prove his capability and credibility on this topic. Hence, the reality is that CodeGov and @Lorimer are competing as equals along with 7 other applicants for the 2 grants that are being offered for Subnet Management.
9 Likes
I have no doubts about your credibility as an active voting neuron. My concerns are with respect to decentralization. If the goal of this grant is to incentivize more entities of comparable credibility to participate as active voting neurons, then it seems counterproductive for the majority of the grants to be distributed to a single coterie.
While your teamās technical expertise is paramount regarding your role as a voting neuron, there are still other factors to be considered (i.e. geographical location, the political environment in which your company operates, your companyās interests/priorities, the financial viability of your companyās business, etcā¦). Regarding these other factors, CodeGov (and Co.) pose just as much counterparty risk as any other team.
The goal of decentralizing the voting power on the IC is to hedge against these risks.
There are several credible teams that have applied to this grant who have the expertise, needed to contribute to responsible governance of the IC. Whatever happens, Iāll offer my support since we all share a vested interests in seeing the IC succeed, but I do believe it would be a mistake to concentrate so much funding to a single clique when there are other teams stepping up.
Best of luck to everyone.
1 Like
I think itās probably worth clarifying points about what CodeGov is (itās not representative to describe CodeGov as a coterie or clique).
Weāre all geographically distributed, living under different jurisdictions, have different voting principles and convictions, etc. If I disappeared tomorrow, CodeGov would obviously still be operating. If CodeGov disappeared tomorrow (not happening, itās a decentralised collective), I would still be operating (assuming the community decides to accept my Subnet Management application).
Out of interest are you able to point to any examples of Subnet Management reviews that these teams have been conducting (to demontrate their credibility/expertise on this topic). Iāve been inviting this repetitively, but havenāt come across anything so far from any candidate other than myself and CodeGov.
Web3 / effective decentralisation requires claims to be easily demonstrable and verifiable with evidence. In my opinion itās not enough to just put yourself forward.
4 Likes
I understand CodeGov operates as a single entity within the ICP ecosystem. As such, I assume you all work together, converse, and collaborate with each other on a regular basis as any team does. I maintain my previous characterization of CodeGov as a coterie in adherence to the literary definition of a coterie( see the merriam-webster definition here.)
regarding the following:
Example reviews are not the only way to establish credibility with respect to qualification of performing this task. Speaking for myself, Iāve spent several years developing on top of and troubleshooting bugs that have emerged within the IC stack and that includes Subnet management.
I also happen to know that at least one other applicant hosts his own ICP node. To do so mandates a level of understanding of the subnet systems that would make him a great candidate as well.
1 Like
As I am voting on those proposals, I now realize there are only two applicants for the topic of āIC-OS Version Election.ā Two parties are elected per topic, so they are the de facto choice. I believe there should be more variety for a topic as crucial as the IC-OS election.
Hence, I am also applying to become a reviewer for the āIC-OS Version Electionā topic.
Iām Enzo; I worked for the DFINITY Foundation for about two years as a software engineer. I was on the Internal Development Experience team, contributing to various infrastructure projects, CI, Bazel, and automation, and then went on to specialize in build-reproducibility, which is paramount in IC-OS elections.
I helped the DRE team with releases most weeks and ensured the CI produced the correct IC-OS images. More recently, I helped remediate a reproducibility bug in the IC-OS image in February, which blocked the release for that week. I am intimately familiar with the whole release process.
My GitHub username is EnzoPlayer0ne. I am the 22nd most active contributor on the IC repository (Contributors to dfinity/ic Ā· GitHub). I also contributed to the Oisy wallet for the airdrop held this past September (GitHub - dfinity/oisy-wallet: A browser-based, multi-chain wallet hosted on the Internet Computer).
I have represented the DFINITY Foundation at various conferences and understand what makes the network unique, and a large part of it is the speed of updates on the IC-OS. This allows the network to evolve at a faster rate than any other blockchain. It enables us to push the boundaries of whatās possible on the chain!
If you want to hear my personal views about the network, I talked about in the opening panel of the networkās third anniversary alongside Tom Serres - https://youtu.be/tJMm-awr9FI?si=kEO7d4mKGMygU7mQ.
I am also an early contributor to WaterNeuron (waterneuron.fi), which aims to allow liquid staking in a fully decentralized manner.
If you have any additional questions, you can reach out to me through the forum or on X @sisyphusdancing.
Here is the proposal - NNS Dapp
10 Likes
Members of CodeGov review and vote independently and can often hold differing opinions, with differing votes. We sometimes discuss specific proposals on the OC much like the whole community can discuss proposals on the DFINITY forum. Note that I vote using my known LORIMER neuron, which can be followed independently of CodeGov.
Thereās an open Subnet Management proposal now. Please take a look and share your thoughts ā Subnet Management - 4zbus (Application) - #10 by Lorimer
3 Likes
This is great news! You have my vote
1 Like
Thank you for the invitation. This proposal has been discussed amongst the Personal DAO dev team and voted on. Enjoy your day.
1 Like
Great! Did the Personal DAO dev team have any concerns or important observations about the proposal? Iād like to think that applicants for these grants will be sharing all of their reviews and findings openly with the community.
A good place to post this would be on the specific subnet forum topic 
2 Likes
I canāt tell if this is a genuine request for input or if you mean to troll. Either way, i donāt think this thread is the proper context to have this discussion.
1 Like
This is a good point
2 Likes
Of course Iām not trolling (I donāt know why youād think that). I linked to an appropriate thread for this discussion (for the proposal). Iād like to see more governance activity on this forum. Thatās what this grant program is surely about. A more active NNS DAO (with diligent voting thatās evidenced by proof of work).
1 Like
Sure, bud.
Iām sure your unsolicited invitation to participate in the subnet topic forum post within the current context of this discussion is totally well intentioned and is in no way facetious. And of course itās not meant to deflect from my earlier point stated Here
As Iāve said, thank you for the invitation. And enjoy your day. If you feel compelled to carry on this discussion, feel free to send me a DM. You can finish gaslighting me there.
Wow. This was an opportunity missed for you @Jesse. You explicitly said that you already reviewed and voted on the proposal that @Lorimer referenced. Instead of providing some simple explanations on what you think about the proposal, you resorted to name calling in a condescending tone. He served you with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate why you are qualified to review one of the proposal types for which you applied. You didnāt even have to provide full details here because you can provide a link. The application guidelines specifically recommended that all applicants convincingly show in their application that they are able to do the required verification tasks. This grant program also requires that you are willing and able to explain your votes on every proposal. You havenāt provided any evidence yet and Lorimer gave you a perfect opportunity. I think you completely misread the value and intent of his questions.
1 Like